Manipulation, The Money Changers. We are Stardust, We are golden We are Billion Year Old Carbon.
A collection of Links, From Chremismatistics to Carbon Credits.
“We are Stardust, We are golden We are Billion Year Old Carbon”.
Woodstock, written by Joni Mitchell
August 9, 2022
CHREMATISTICS TO CARBON CREDITS. THE NEW MONETARY SYSTEM, THE CARBON CREDIT “GOLD STANDARD”
Capitalism & the Illusion of Money – David Korten
Money and Goods Are Different
https://www.wanttoknow.info/articles/quigley_carroll.tragedy_hope_banking_money_history
Thus, clearly, money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary, exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from failure to recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is not wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. They always behave in opposite ways, just as they usually move in opposite directions. If the value of one goes up, the value of the other goes down, and in the same proportion. The value of goods, expressed in money, is called “prices,” while the value of money, expressed in goods, is called “value.”
Tragedy and Hope
June 15, 2018
https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/?s=Money+and+Goods+quigley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_theory
Silvio Gesell denied value theory in economics. He thought that value theory is useless and prevents economics from becoming science and that a currency administration guided by value theory is doomed to sterility and inactivity.[8]
Evaluating the Sraffian Theory of Value
How close does the Sraffian theory of value come to meeting the criteria of an ideal theory of value?
It delivers a set of relative prices directly. There is no transformation problem as with the labor theory of value.
It identifies the forces behind the distribution of income as exogenous to the narrowly defined "economy." It also indicates how the technology of production sets limits on wages and/or profits.
The math is very messy, but Sraffian value theory can provide a framework for understanding economic growth by the simple device of assuming that profits are reinvested.
The initial stylized facts are the same as those in the other theories of value: a capitalist economy with sufficient competition to bring about a single rate of profit.
The initial assumptions can be relaxed allowing the Sraffian model to include fixed capital, different qualities of natural resources that give rise to rent, or even the effect of market power on prices and profits.
Unfortunately, the Sraffian model lacks transparency. It can only be presented and explored in the medium of matrix algebra. It cannot be reduced to simple geometric devices as can the marginal theory of value and it cannot be "added-up" from hours of labor as can the labor theory of value.
The Sraffian Theory of Value
Piero Sraffa (1898-1983) was intrigued by Ricardo's failure to find an invariable standard of value and spent much of his working life on that problem. He had been an early critic of neoclassical economics. In a 1926 article he demonstrated both the illogic and the irrelevance of one of the foundation blocks of neoclassical economics, the assertion that costs increase as output increases. [19: Source] At Cambridge in the 1930s, Sraffa became part of the inner circle, known as "the circus," that included John Maynard Keynes and Joan Robinson. In the process of editing the ten volume Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Sraffa discovered some long-lost notes which represented Ricardo's final explorations of the value problem. After a 30-year gestation period, Sraffa's own solution finally appeared in 1960 as a thin book full of equations with the off-putting title of Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities.
Aside from providing an elegant solution to a problem that neither Ricardo nor Marx had been able to resolve, Sraffa's theory of value quickly took center stage in several ongoing economic debates. The post-Keynesians had just begun an attack on the misconceptions underlying the neoclassical formulations of capital: Sraffa provided a more depictive construction. Institutionalists had long claimed that social and political factors - political power in particular - were major determinants of the distribution of income: Sraffa provided a logical model which showed the distribution of income to be exogenous.
2 - Adam Smith's theory of value
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Summary
Whatever the philosophical or methodological approach economists have taken to their discipline, whatever view they have taken of its scope, objectives and analytical techniques, the theory of value – with its associated theory of distribution – has been a key feature of the disciplinary matrix or paradigm to which they have chosen to conform. The prevailing concept of value and the use made of it has altered, chameleon-fashion, to match the currently accepted economic doctrines. In pre-mercantilist periods, when it would be an exaggeration to say that there was an explicit theory of value, the concept of value reflected current attitudes to economic questions. For example, in medieval scholastic doctrine the value of the commodity tended to be identified with the morally right price. In a static, parochialised economic and social order the just price would equal the customary price, reflecting a socially accepted scale of values, and the whole community would know what the fair price ought to be. However when the market became more dominant in economic life, there was an increasing tendency for the concept of the just price to coincide with the normal (competitive) market price, including an element of normal profit. For this too became a customary price which could be justified as being the proper one. Realists such as Thomas Aquinas did not hesitate to identify the actual market price, even when inflated by temporary scarcity, with the just price.
https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/?s=Bentham+Defence+of+Usury
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PRINCIPLE “NO MORE TRADE THAN
CAPITAL” WITH RESPECT TO COLONIAL GOVERNMENT, ECONOMY AND PEACE
What is it that would be the loss, suppose it to amount to
any thing, that a nation would sustain by the giving up of any
colony? The difference between the profit to be made by the
employing in that trade so much capital as would be employed in
it were the colony kept, and the profit that would be made by the
employment of the same capital in any other way, suppose in the
improvement of land. The loss is nothing, if the same capital
employed in the improvement of land would be more productive: and
it would be more productive by the amount of so much as would go
to form the annual rent: for deducting that rent, capital
employed in the improvement of land produces as much as if
employed in any other way. If the loss were any thing, would it
then amount to the whole difference between the profit upon that
trade, and the profit upon the next most profitable one? no: but
only to the difference between so much of that difference as
would be produced if the colony were retained in subjection, and
so much as would be produced if the colony were declared free.
The value of a colony to the mother country, according to the
common mode of computation, is equal to the sum total of imports
from that colony and exports to it put together.
From this statement, if the foregoing observation be just,
the following deductions will come to be made.
1. The whole value of the exports to the colony.
2. So much of the imports as is balanced by the exports.
3. Such a portion of the above remainder as answers to so
much of the trade as would be equally carried on, were the colony
independent.
4. So much of that reduced profit as would be made, were the
same capital employed in any other trade or branch of industry
lost by the independence of the colony.
5. But the same capital, if employed in agriculture. would
have produced a rent over and above the ordinary profits of
capital: which rent, according to a general and undisputed
computation, may be stated at a sum equal to the amount of those
profits. Thence arises a further deduction, viz. the loss to the
nation caused by employing the capital in the trade to the
colony, in preference to the improvement of land, and thence upon
the supposition that the continuance of the trade depended upon
the keeping the colony in subjection.
The other mischiefs resulting from the keeping of a colony in
subjection, are:
1. The expence of its establishment, civil and military.
2. The contingent expence of wars and other coercive measures
for keeping it in subjection.
3. The contingent expence of wars for the defence of it
against foreign powers.
4. The force, military and naval, constantly kept on foot
under the apprehension of such wars.
5. The occasional danger to political liberty from the force
thus kept up.
6. The contingent expence of wars produced by alliances
contracted for the purpose of supporting wars that may be brought
on by the defence of it.
7. The corruptive effects of the influence resulting from the
patronage of the establishment, civil and military.
8. The damage that must be done to the national stock of
intelligence by the false views of the national interest, which
must be kept up in order to prevent the nation from opening their
eyes and insisting upon the enfranchisement of the colony.
9. The sacrifice that must be made of the real interest of
the colony to this imaginary interest of the mother-country. It
is for the purpose of governing it badly, and for no other, that
you wish to get or keep a colony. Govern it well, it is of no use
to you.
To govern its inhabitants as well as they would govern
themselves, you must choose to govern them those only whom they
would themselves choose, you must sacrifice none of their
interests to your own, you must bestow as much time and attention
to their interests as they would themselves, in a word, you must
take those very measures and no others, which they themselves
would take. But would this be governing? And what would it be
worth to you, if it were?
After all, it would be impossible for you to govern them so
well as they would themselves, on account of the distance.
10. The bad government resulting to the mother-country from
the complication, the indistinct views of things, and the
consumption of time occasioned by this load of distant
dependencies.
June 15, 2018
HOPE WITHOUT AN OBJECT CANNOT LIVE. THIS LAND IS MINE, HENRY GEORGE AND THE SINGLE LAND TAX
Thus, clearly, money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary, exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from a failure to recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is not wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. They always behave in opposite ways, just as they usually move in opposite directions. If the value of one goes up, the value of the other goes down, and in the same proportion. The value of goods, expressed in money, is called “prices,” while the value of money, expressed in goods, is called “value.”
Carol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope
https://www.wanttoknow.info/articles/quigley_carroll.tragedy_hope_banking_money_history
Money and Goods Are Different
—”Near the window by which I write a
great bull is tethered by a ring in his nose. Grazing round and
round he has wound his rope about the stake until now he stands
a close prisoner, tantalized by rich grass he cannot reach,
unable even to toss his head to rid him of the flies that cluster
on his shoulders. Now and again he struggles vainly, and then,
after pitiful bellowings, relapses into silent misery.
This bull, a very type of massive strength, who, because he
has not wit enough to see how he might be free, suffers want
in sight of plenty, and is helplessly preyed upon by weaker
creatures, seems to me no unfit emblem of the working masses”
Henry George Quoted P. 303 Sprading Liberty and Great Libertarians.
https://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPFT.html?chapter_num=2#book-reader
Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s published diaries Table Talk. Table Talk.
this from 27th April 1823.
The national debt has, in fact, made more men rich than have a right to be so, or, rather, any ultimate power, in case of a struggle, of actualizing their riches. It is, in effect, like an ordinary, where three hundred tickets have been distributed, but where there is, in truth, room only for one hundred. So long as you can amuse the company with any thing else, or make them come in successively, all is well, and the whole three hundred fancy themselves sure of a dinner; but if any suspicion of a hoax should arise, and they were all to rush into the room at once, there would be two hundred without a potato for their money; and the table would be occupied by the landholders, who live on the spot.
Bankers Obsessed With Maintaining Value of Money
Rising prices benefit debtors and injure creditors, while falling prices do the opposite. A debtor, called upon to pay a debt at a time when prices are higher than when he contracted the debt, must yield up less goods and services than he obtained at the earlier date, on a lower price level when he borrowed the money. A creditor such as a bank, which has lent money equivalent to a certain quantity of goods and services on one price level, gets back the same amount of money but a smaller quantity of goods and services when repayment comes at a higher price level, because the money repaid is then less valuable.
This is why bankers, as creditors in money terms, have been obsessed with maintaining the value of money, although the reason they have traditionally given for this obsession (is) that “sound money” maintains “business confidence”, (which is more) … propagandist … than accurate.
Hundreds of years ago, bankers began to specialize, with the richer and more influential ones associated increasingly with foreign trade and foreign-exchange transactions. Since these were richer and more cosmopolitan and increasingly concerned with questions of political significance, such as stability and debasement of currencies, war and peace, dynastic marriages, and worldwide trading monopolies, they became the financiers and financial advisers of governments.
Moreover, since their relationships with governments were always in monetary terms and not real terms, and since they were always obsessed with the stability of monetary exchanges between one country’s money and another, they used their power and influence to do two things: (1) to get all money and debts expressed in terms of a strictly limited commodity – ultimately gold; and (2) to get all monetary matters out of the control of governments and political authority, on the ground that they would be handled better by private banking interests.
Bankers Create Money Out of Nothing
For generations men had sought to avoid the one drawback of gold, its heaviness, by using pieces of paper to represent specific pieces of gold. We call such pieces of paper gold certificates. Such a certificate entitles its bearer to exchange it for its piece of gold on demand, but in view of the convenience of paper, only a small fraction of certificate holders ever did make such demands.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1207/money/money-explained/
These gold coins are an example of money with an intrinsic value. Made out of gold, its value is widely accepted because gold has value in nearly all countries.
Pros and cons of Financialisation
24 January 2019 by Tejvan Pettinger
Financialisation is a term used to describe the increased role of the financial sector in a modern economy.
Source: NYT 2013
Financialisation also refers to particular trends in the financial sector of the economy.
This includes:
Increased use of financial intermediaries
Increased use of futures markets. For example future contracts for bonds, shares, currencies and interest rates)
An increased importance placed on the financial sector. For the concept of‘shareholder value’ as the primary motivation of companies. This can lead companies to become focused on maximising dividends to please shareholders. This can lead to downward pressure on wages, and a short-termism rather than long-term investment.
Financialisation can also refer to how profit is made increasingly through financial channels rather than through trade and commodity production.
Problems of financialisation
Increased wealth inequality. In 1978 commercial banks held $1.2 trillion (53% of US GDP) by 2007, commercial banks held $11.8 trillion – 84% of GDP. Wages in the finance sector have risen faster than the non-finance sector.
Focusing on finance can be at a detriment to investment in real goods and industry.
Research by Stephen G Cecchetti and Enisse Kharroubi (2012) suggest after a certain point of economic development – faster growth in finance is bad for aggregate real growth. “One interpretation of this finding is that financial booms are inherently bad for trend growth.” (BIS – working paper 381)
It has caused wealth to be created through rising asset prices rather than through innovation and increased production. The consequence is that encourages rent seeking – where income and wealth is sought from success in the finance industry. It diverts time and effort away from seeking profit from producing goods and services.
Short-termism. A focus on returns from finance rather than long-term investment and wider social factors.
High wages in the finance sector, attract skilled graduates, especially with maths and science degrees – taking these graduates away from jobs in the real economy which are more productive.
Increased complexity of financial instruments can make even banks struggle to understand what they have. E.g. Collateralised debt obligations actually contained bad mortgage loans, but banks and investors often didn’t realise what they were buying.
Increased financialisation has encouraged speculation over future asset prices. But, it doesn’t add to the real value of the economy.
Financial markets can become infected with irrational exuberance. For example, in the lead up to credit crisis 2000-2007, house prices rose above long-term averages, mortgage loans exploded, but the prevailing market sentiment was that ‘this time was different.’
Financialisation has been accelerated by the process of leverage. In the period 1930s to 1980, bank lending was mainly based on deposits. This kind of banking was safe, if unspectacular. However, with financial deregulation, banks were increasingly creative in borrowing money on money markets, to increase their scope for lending profitable mortgages/credit cards. This enabled banks to increase their profit margin, but they became over-extended, their liquidity was reliant on the ability to borrow money on short-term money markets. In the credit crisis, the liquidity dried up, banks weren’t able to ‘roll-over’ their long-term loans with short-term borrowing and so faced a liquidity (credit) crunch.
Financialisation increased interdependence between different local markets. A credit crisis in the US, will soon spread and affect other finance markets too.
Misaligned exchange rates. Financial speculation in certain assets can lead to an appreciation in a currency due to demand for financial assets. However, this can make the export sector less competitive – leading to more resources moving into the finance sector and away from a manufacturing base. The problem is that if there is a correction in the exchange rate and exchange rate falls, it takes time to recreate a more diverse economy based on exports. (This idea has a relationship with the Resource Curse)
AD = C + I + G + X – M
31 January 2019 by Tejvan Pettinger
Readers Question: what does AD stand for in economic terms?
AD = Aggregate Demand – the total planned expenditure in an economy.
Aggregate Demand is composed of various factors C, I, G, X – M
C= Consumer spending
I = Investment (Gross Fixed Capital Formation)
G= Government Spending
X= Exports
M= Imports
AD places a crucial role in determining the level of national output in an economy. Although Monetarists will argue it is AS which will determine the long run trend rate of growth.
History of Banking and Money
Key Excerpts From Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope
"There does exist ... an international Anglophile network ... which we may identify as the Round Table Groups. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records.
"I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected ... to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."
-- Quote from Caroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 65
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidad_de_Fomento
It has become the preferred and predominant measure to determine the cost of real estate, values of housing and any secured loan, either private or of the Chilean government. Individual payments are made in Chilean pesos (the country's legal tender), according to the daily value of the UF. A similar currency unit for use generally in payment of taxes, fines, or customs duty is the Unidad Tributaria Mensual [es] (UTM) (literally: monthly tax unit).
Indexed unit of account
Add languages
Tools
hide
Actions
General
Print/export
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A daily indexed unit of account or Daily Consumer Price Index (Daily CPI) can be used in contracts or in the Capital Maintenance in Units of Constant Purchasing Power accounting model, to ensure that deferred payments and constant real value non-monetary items are indexed to the general price level in terms of a Daily Index. This is done so that the real value of these items is not affected by changes in the inflation rate (in the case of monetary items) or by the stable measuring unit assumption (in the case of constant real value non-monetary items). Non-indexed units, such as contracts written in nominal currency units and nominal monetary items, incur inflation or deflation risk in the case of monetary items. During all periods of inflation, the debtor pays less in real terms than what both the debtor and creditor agreed at the original time of the contract or sale. On the other hand, in periods of deflation, the debtor pays more in real terms than the original agreed value. The opposite is true for creditors. Contracts and constant real value non-monetary items accounted in daily indexed units of account, Daily CPI or monetized daily indexed units of account incur no inflation or deflation risk, as the real value of payments and outstanding capital amounts remain constant over time while the nominal values are inflation- or deflation-indexed daily.
Constant purchasing power accounting (CPPA) is an accounting model that is an alternative to model historical cost accounting under high inflation and hyper-inflationary environments.[1] It has been approved for use by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Under this IFRS and US GAAP authorized system, financial capital maintenance is always measured in units of constant purchasing power (CPP) in terms of a Daily CPI (consumer price index) during low inflation, high inflation, hyperinflation and deflation; i.e., during all possible economic environments. During all economic environments it can also be measured in a monetized daily indexed unit of account (e.g. the Unidad de Fomento in Chile) or in terms of a daily relatively stable foreign currency parallel rate, particularly during hyperinflation when a government refuses to publish CPI data.
Tyrian shekel
7 languages
Tools
hide
Actions
General
Print/export
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tyrian shekels, tetradrachms, or tetradrachmas were coins of Tyre, which in the Roman Empire took on an unusual role as the medium of payment for the Temple tax in Jerusalem, and subsequently gained notoriety as a likely mode of payment for Judas Iscariot.
A Tyrian shekel, 116/115 BC. (Left) Obverse: Laureate head of Melqarth-Herakles; (Right) Reverse: Eagle.
The Tyrian shekel is mentioned at least twice in the New Testament. The first time it is mentioned is in Matthew 17:24-27 when the Temple tax collectors asked Peter if he and his Master paid the Temple tax. Peter replied in the affirmative. The Lord Jesus, seeing a teaching opportunity on Biblical greatness, demonstrated humility by paying the Temple tax for Himself and Peter with a shekel coin from a fish's mouth (Franz 1997:81-87). The second mention is in Matthew 26:14, 15 when Judas betrayed the Lord Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, most likely Tyrian shekels from the Temple Treasury.
LOCAL CURRENCIES IN THE 21ST CENTURY: UNDERSTANDING MONEY, BUILDING LOCAL ECONOMIES, RENEWING COMMUNITY
By CHRISTOPHER LINDSTROM + SUSAN WITT
CONFERENCE REPORT
There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. – Victor Hugo
The most sustainable economy would be one in which the goods consumed in a region are produced in the same region using local resources and local labor. Ernst Fritz Schumacher referred to such a system as “an economy of permanence.” His 1973 book Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, remains the most compelling case for building vibrant regional economies as a counterpoint to our increasing reliance on far flung global production systems.
The Schumacher Center for a New Economics, formed in 1980 after E. F. Schumacher’s death, is dedicated to creating and promoting the appropriate scaled economic tools that foster patterns of regional economic production and trade, benefiting small businesses and family farms, and involving consumers ever more directly with the people and land of their community. Among these tools are local currencies. During the weekend of June 25-27, 2004, the Schumacher Center convened a conference “Local Currencies in the Twenty-First Century: Understanding Money, Building Local Economies, Renewing Community”. Over three hundred people gathered at Bard College on the Hudson River in New York State to join what conference participant Pete Seeger called, “the best conference I ever attended.”
In today’s global economy national currencies have had the effect of centralizing ownership of wealth and of widening the gap between rich and poor–all the while undermining local communities, devastating indigenous peoples, and polluting the environment. Decentralized regional currencies are an important counterforce working to redistribute wealth more broadly while supporting unique regional identities, cultures, and communities. A local currency defines a regional trading area, favoring those small independent businesses willing to trade in the currency. Local businesses, unable to compete with the products of an increasingly predatory global economy, become strong players in resilient, regional marketplaces.
Jesus and Economic Life
The coming of the Roman Empire destroyed the community-based economy that God had provided for the children of Israel.
The Sadducees and the priestly families that collaborated with the Romans were rewarded with large land holdings. Many accumulated large blocks of land. The people who had previously owned them were turned into tenant farmers, who had to hand over at least half of their crops to their landlords.
The empire imposed exorbitant taxes on the ordinary people. This pushed most families into poverty. If taxes could not be paid, their property would be confiscated. The tax collectors got rich and the rest became tenant farmers or day labourers. Jesus saw the tax collectors as "sick" (Luke 5:31).
For ordinary people, storing up wealth was impossible. If the Roman soldiers found coins or grain hidden in a house, they would smash the house.
Debt was used to impoverish people and to steal their land. A person who was poor would be lent money at very high interest rates (50 percent) using their land as security. When they were unable to pay the interest or repay the loan, the interest would be added to the loan. In a few years, a small loan could grow to be worth more than the land given as security. The lender would demand the land to settle the debt.
Herod built a Greek-styled temple in Jerusalem. His son Antipas built the new Roman cities at Deopolis and Tiberius. The governor of Judea built a new city of Caesar Philip in honour of Caesar. To pay for these building projects, the people had to pay tribute.
People were hungry all the time.
During those days another large crowd gathered. Since they had nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way (Mark 8:1-3).
The state of people's health was so bad that going without food was debilitating.
By Jesus time, most families in Israel had no land. Most of the land was controlled by a few powerful families and moneylenders. Tax collectors and soldiers would grab most of the crops that were grown and most money that was earned. The people were left with very little to live on. Most people were hungry most of the time. Many would have to find some work each day as a day labourer to buy their food for the day. That is why Jesus knew the people had followed him around the lake to listen to his teaching all day would be hungry. If they had not worked, they would have no food, and not be able to buy any.
For the people of Israel, the Roman Empire was a terrible place to live. Land was concentrated in the hands of a few. Capital was no longer distributed evenly. The people did not have money to lend to others, because all surpluses were taken by the Romans and the temple system. Life was brutal and extreme poverty was normal. No wonder people were looking for a Messiah who would break the shackles of Rome and free them from the burden of debt, tax and tribute.
Repentance
When Jesus preached and taught in Galilee and Jerusalem, his message made sense in the local context. So when he and John called the people to repent, they were not challenging the people for their failure to produce the fruit of the Spirit. That was not possible, because the spirit had not yet been given.
The people were called to repent of their failure to obey the law and the prophets. They had not fulfilled the requirements of the Mosaic covenant. Local communities had lost the right to judge and govern themselves, so they were not accountable for that. Roman law and government had been imposed upon them, so they could not repent of failure to implement God's system of justice and law.
However, they could be challenged for their failure to implement the instructions for economic life. Despite Roman control, they were still free to voluntarily apply these instructions, so they needed to repent of this failure and begin living their economic life in accordance with God's principles. The political situation was beyond their control. They had more control over their economic situation.
If the families of Galilee and Judea stood alone, the Romans soldiers and tax collectors could pick them off one at a time.
If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand (Mark 3:24-25).
The households and families of Israel were divided from each other. They had stopped caring for each other. If they stood together in solidarity and supported each other, they could create a better life, despite the oppression of the Romans.
We interpret the Parable of the Sower as describing the response of people to the gospel. That makes sense subsequent to the cross and resurrection, but it did not make sense to Jesus listeners. Jesus said, "the seed is the word of God" (Luke 8:11). For his listeners, the word of God was the Law and the Prophets, including the instructions for economic life. They had been given the gift of the Law, but it has mostly been wasted. The devil stole it from some people's hearts. Many received it gladly, but during a time or testing fell away. Others accepted God's economic wisdom, but it was choked out by the "worries of life and the deceitfulness of riches" (Matt 13:22).
This was the situation in Israel when Jesus was teaching. The poor people were so beaten down that they did not think that it was practical to live by God's instructions for economic life. The rich were so sucked in by their positions of wealth they were not interested either. It would disrupt their pleasure and comfort. Jesus sent his disciples out to preach repentance.
They went out and preached that people should repent (Mark 6:11).
The disciples could not preach in a vacuum. They would have to answer questions about why the people needed to repent. They would have challenged the people about their failure to live by the Torah, especially the economic stuff.
Life Together
The Torah provided a way for a community of people together in peace. It included:
A system of law dealing with crime and punishment
A system of justice and judges
A system of defence
An economic system
It did not need a king or political power, which meant:
No taxation
No tribute.
Jesus came to bring about the restoration of Israel. The renewal of Israel would be achieved through the renewal of life in villages and communities.
Jesus and the Law
Jesus had strong words for those who teach about the law. He has not abolished the law. He came to fulfil the law, not to abolish it.
Anyone who teaches others to set aside one of the least of these commands will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever teaches others to practice these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:19).
I do not know anyone who has tried to "become great in the kingdom" by teaching people how to "obey the commands of the Torah". Yet that is what Jesus seems to be encouraging. He expected his followers to teach people how to obey the commands given to Moses. An important part of this should be teaching about the instructions for economic life.
Jesus condemned the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees, who had twisted the law in a burden by leaving out the love, and providing excuses for ignoring the instructions for economic life.
Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone (Luke 11:42).
And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them (Luke 11:46).
The Torah, and especially the book of Leviticus, prescribed cultural markers to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. The laws of justice and crime and the instructions for economic life could not distinguish Israel, because God intended the nations to copy them (Deut 4:5-7). The surrounding nations would not copy the cultural markers like the Sabbath and food laws.
Judging by Jesus challenges, the Pharisees and teachers of the law had focused on the cultural markers and neglected the more important aspects of the Torah. Jesus requires his followers to focus on justice and the love of God.
Instructions for Economic Life
Jesus teaching challenged the people to live according to God's instructions for economic life. These were rooted in love of God and love of neighbour (Lev 19:18).
John the Baptist challenged people to share their food and clothing with those in need.
Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same (Luke 3:11).
He challenged the soldiers to stop extorting taxes that they were not entitled to take. This was common practice at the time.
Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely-be content with your pay (Luke 3:11-14).
John was pushing the people back towards God's principles for economic life.
Jesus also challenged the people to give generously to those in need.
Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back (Luke 6:30).
Love of neighbours required this.
Jesus challenged the people to lend to those in need without expecting anything in return.
Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you (Matt 5:42).
This was an application of the poor law principles.
If you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked (Luke 6:34-35).
These words were a reference to providing interest-free loans to the poor.
Many of the people living in Galilee and Judea were in debt. Their debts were often owed to their countrymen. Jesus parable suggested a solution.
Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both (Luke 7:41-42)?
This was not a revolutionary idea. It was what the Torah required. Debts were to be cancelled after seven years,
Cancellation of debt was the theme of another parable (Matt 18:21-31). A man who had been forgiven a huge debt refused to forgive someone who owed him a small amount that he owed and had him thrown in prison.
The master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master handed him over to the jailers (Matt 18:32-34)
In many ways, the sin of the servant was worse. The money he owed would have been a business loan. The loan to the second servant was a loan to someone in poverty. This loan should have been interest-free, and should have been cancelled after seven years, if the person could not repay it. This was what the Torah required.
Jesus called for people to cancel debts.
Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny (Matt 5:25-26).
The people should not go to court to enforce their debts. If they went to a Roman judge, anything could happen. They could both end up in prison and poverty. It would be far more sensible to cancel debts after seven years as the Torah required. The ones going to the courts would be the creditors. If they followed God's standards and cancelled the debts, they would not need to be going to the courts.
The Lord's prayer contained a commitment to cancelling debts.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors (Matt 6:12).
We do not notice this because we focus on God forgiving our sins, but Jesus just assumes that we will cancel the sins of our debtors. I doubt that many Christians praying the Lord's prayer think about what that means for them.
Jesus expected his followers to give to those in need, and to lend not expecting to be repaid.
And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back (Luke 6:33-34).
Bad people are quite happy to lend, if they know they will be repaid, especially if they can earn interest. Jesus expected his followers to be different. They must lend to the poor expecting nothing in return. This was not a new idea. This was the Torah principle of interest-free loans to the poor.
This giving should not be done out of obligation. It should be motivated by the love of God.
Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful (Luke 6:35).
Those who love God will be merciful to be like him.
Jesus challenged his followers to feed people who were hungry.
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me (Matt 25:35-36).
Followers of Jesus are expected to provide their neighbours with food, just as Boaz provided Ruth and Naomi with food by allowing Ruth to glean on his land.
Giving to the poor made economic sense.
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal (Matt 6:19-21).
Storing up treasure was impossible in Galilee and Judea. If the moths and vermin did not destroy it, the soldiers and tax collectors. Maybe the moths and vermin were a cheeky reference to the Romans and their tax collectors.
Jesus told employers that they should be considerate in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16). The employer promised to pay the employees who only worked for part of a day "what is right"(v 4,7). The Greek word is "dikaion", which means righteous. This employer wanted to do the right thing. For Jesus listeners, what is right would be what is specified by the law. The workers who were employed for the whole day were offered a denarius. That was the standard pay for a day's work at that time.
The employer paid every worker a denarius, even though some had only worked for a few hours, while others had worked for a whole day. The reason was that a person needed a denarius to buy a day's rations. These people were on the poverty line, living from one day to the next. The employer was considerate. He decided to pay each person enough to buy food for the day. This was a generous application of the command to pay employs each evening (Deut 24:15). An employer has an obligation to give his neighbour enough food that he will be strong enough to work the next day.
Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous (Matt 20:15).
Being considerate and providing for a neighbour is more important than being fair.
A debate is taking place about the principle of a "living wage". In Jesus time, a denarius per day was a living wage. The employer in the parable, who did "what is right" paid all his employees a denarius, regardless of how long they had worked. He knew when the end of the day had come that they would not be able to earn any more money until the next day. Most day labourers in that time lived from day to day. This employer paid a living wage by giving his employees enough to live on until the next day, when they would have the opportunity to earn some more. A living wage is not something new, it is a New Testament concept, based on God's Instructions for Economic Life.
Jesus challenged those who had accumulated land to give it away. When he challenged a man who inquired about eternal life, the man claimed to have kept all the commandments since he was a boy.
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth (Matt 8:21-23).
This man's wealth would mostly be land. He would have had to collaborate with the Romans to have accumulated so much. He claimed to have kept the commandments since he was a boy (Matt 8:20). Jesus explained that he was wrong. He had honoured the Ten Commandments, but he had ignored God's instructions for economic life. He was not entitled to accumulate land. To be righteous, he needed to sell his land and give it away. This would fulfil the land laws of Leviticus 25.
The transfiguration confirmed the authority of the law and the prophets. After this event, Jesus gave an interesting response to a question about why Elijah must come first.
To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist (Matt 17:11-13).
Jesus explained that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy that Elijah would come. His role was not to create something new, but to restore all things. John could only restore something that had already existed. The only thing that he could restore in Galilee was the Torah, and especially the economic stuff that was most relevant to their daily lives. This is why John preached about economic issues. Jesus validated John's message after the transfiguration.
Jesus preached a message of repentance. This was not repentance for general sin. Jesus demanded repentance for failure to obey the Torah. The ordinary people were not guilty of legalism: trying to achieve righteous by observing the cultural markers like the Pharisees. They needed to repent of neglecting the economic stuff that the law promised would keep their economies strong.
Jesus Jubilee
Jesus challenged the people to a new Jubilee. This would involve cancellation of debt and restoration of land. Jesus preached a stark message on wealth and poverty:
Blessed are the poor.
Woe to the rich
Blessed are you who hunger now.
Woe to you who are well fed now (Luke 4:20-25).
These are strong words. He was promising that the poor would be blessed and the rich would experience woes. This is the reverse of the way things happen in the world, so what did Jesus mean? He was not referring to judgment. Judgement would destroy the rich, but it would also hurt the poor, so Jesus must have been talking about something different. He was prophesying a huge flow of wealth/capital from the rich to the poor. Jesus was describing a different type of jubilee.
The exile to Babylon made it impossible to apply the Jubilee laws. The Jews returned from exile when the Persian Empire conquered Babylon, but it is not clear how many families were able to reclaim the land that their families had held before the exile. Jeremiah had redeemed a field at Anathoth, as a sign of eventual restoration (Jer 32), so someone from his family was probably able to claim it. However, I presume that most families were not able to reclaim their land when they returned from exile. Implementing a land-restoration Jubilee would not have been practical.
By Jesus time, most Jewish families had no land. Even if a family re-gained their land after the exile, it would have been lost to the powerful families who collaborated with the Romans. Joseph's family should have owned land near Bethlehem, because he had to go there for the census, but he had no land there, and did not even seem to have family members there that he could stay with. Being a carpenter or stonemason, he had probably moved to Nazareth to get work on one of Herod's city building projects. Many families would be in a similar situation. Without access to land, they were dependent on casual work. Those with skills or a craft like Joseph would be in a slightly less precarious situation.
The ordinary people of Galilee and Judea were desperate for relief from their oppression, so when Jesus announced a new Jubilee, he would have created immense expectation.
The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour (Luke 4:18-19).
Jesus promised that this Jubilee would be good news for the poor. It would provide a new freedom for people who were oppressed by the trials of life.
We tend to spiritualise this promise, but Jesus words must have meant something more real for his listeners. He was not promising to overthrow the Romans and take David's throne in Jerusalem. This would not be practical. He was not even advocating a forced re-distribution of land back to the boundaries laid out by Joshua. That was not practical, because the Romans had used land to reward those who collaborated with them. The people who controlled the land in Israel were protected by Roman privilege.
Jesus was proclaiming a completely different type of jubilee. It would come about through ordinary people, applying the instructions for economic life laid out in the Torah. The land laws may not have been practical, but all the other instructions were still relevant. They did not need government intervention or consent. They could be applied by the ordinary people, despite the Roman control. Their application would bring a huge transformation to their society, as the practical sharing and caring was restored.
Returning to an equal distribution of land was not practical, because the Romans would not allow it, but that was less important, because for most people other forms of capital had become more essential. Jesus jubilee introduced a change that would create a more equal distribution of wealth/capital.
Village Restoration
The people of Israel were looking for a Messiah who would deliver them from the Romans. Jesus approach was different. He planned to renew economic life from the ground up. Most people still lived in villages. By applying the instructions for economic life, they could strengthen their
God had given Israel an economic and social model for life together, but under the pressure of economic hardship, the people had stopped caring for each other. Most were so busy struggling to survive that they had no time to think about the situation of others. Caring and sharing had stopped and everyone was looking out for themselves. Cheating and stealing to get ahead were normal. People assumed that they had no other choice. Jesus challenged this view. He wanted the people to see that they would be better off if they adopted God's way of living.
Jesus spent a lot of time in the villages of Galilee, challenging the people to restore the old way of life, as prescribed in the Torah. When he sent his apostles out on a mission, he told them to go to a village and stay with a person of peace. The aim was not just to get converts, but to restore village communities to God's model for economic life. They were to focus on the person of influence or the person of peace, because this person would be essential for changing the way that people lived. The villages were a great place to re-learn giving and sharing. Jesus knew that the gospel and the instructions for economic life could restore the economic strength of village life and the Romans could not prevent this from happening.
The Kingdom will be like yeast spreading through the dough.
The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough (Matt 13:31-33).
Applying this to Israel where Jesus was speaking, the parable says that the Kingdom of God will be established as the gospel and the Spirit spread from village to village and economic life was restored.
Jesus warned about a different type of yeast.
Be careful. Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt 16:6).
The Pharisees and the Sadducees ignored the instructions for economic life, but they collaborated with the Romans to protect their position and privilege. Jesus later warned that those who had collaborated with the Romans would be destroyed. The collaboration system would eventually be swept away (Matt 24.) When that happened, economic strength could shift to the villages, if they had prepared by applying the instructions for economic life that God had given to them.
Render Unto Ceasar, The Money Changers, Usury and Odious Debt?
Henry David Thoreau writes in Civil Disobedience:
Christ answered the Herodians according to their condition. "Show me the tribute-money," said he; – and one took a penny out of his pocket; – If you use money which has the image of Caesar on it, and which he has made current and valuable, that is, if you are men of the State, and gladly enjoy the advantages of Caesar's government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it; "Render therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God those things which are God's" – leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which; for they did not wish to know.
https://comment.org/render-unto-caesar-the-christians-call-to-action-or-retreat/